I am disgusted by a widely-publicized TV ad being aired by the Freedom to Marry Coalition, which is pushing for legalization of gay marriage.
“Freedom…that’s what I fought for as a marine,” says a young veteran who fought against the people of Iraq, using his warrior cred—and his Republicanism—to argue for the right of gays and lesbians to marry.
Personally, I’d rather that gays and lesbians lead the way to a better life for everybody—by urging straights to stop getting married and abandon the trap of monogamism, which causes untold misery and reinforces outmoded systems of patriarchy, hierarchy and capitalism. It is disturbing to watch homosexuals fight for the right for their own enslavement, much as it is sad to see women and gays struggle for the “right” to murder Iraqis, Afghans and other Muslims in their homelands by serving in the military.
Perhaps these arguments are too forward-looking.
But nobody should be OK with using the deaths of innocent Iraqis to promote gay rights.
Gay people are oppressed. So are Iraqis under U.S. occupation. Occupation by war criminals like the vet in this ad. How many Iraqis did he shoot at? Kill?
The people of Iraq need our support against the U.S. occupation. Oppressed peoples should support one another. This is a shameful ad.
14 Comments.
too forward looking, unfortunately. 🙁
but not for some of us. 🙂
http://www.againstequality.org/
“I’d rather that gays and lesbians lead the way to a better life for everybody—by urging straights to stop getting married and abandon the trap of monogamism, which causes untold misery and reinforces outmoded systems of patriarchy, hierarchy and capitalism.”
Fuckin’ right! THAT’S the Ted Rall I like to read. Couldn’t agree more. And the notion that some military goon killing innocents in the middle east, so we can have freedom, is as offensive as it gets.
Geez, speaking as a Family Law attorney, I can’t think of a way that eliminating marriage would make life easier for anyone. You see, I have many, many, MANY clients with child custody/support issues that were NEVER MARRIED. Oh, and domestic violence restraining orders issues, too.
You see, being married is not was causes the problems, it is being human and needing relationships that causes the problems. Marriage is actually a set of rules and laws that defines what happens if a couple decides it’s over. It actually STREAMLINES the process of extrication, rather than complicating it.
Oh, and it allows places like hospitals and such to allow visits, decisions on health care, etc.
Rather than disrespect “our troops”–I was 1-Y like Muhammed Ali–I witness our disrespect and failure to count our victims.
Liebchen.
“Geez, speaking as a Family Law attorney, I can’t think of a way that eliminating marriage would make life easier for anyone.”
That’s funny; I can’t think of a way that keeping marriage would make life easier for anyone … except those who are married.
Here’s an example of what I mean. Health care. If I’m married and lose my job, I get health coverage through my spouse’s employer’s insurance plan. If I’m single, I either have to come up with an exorbitantly high premium at the exact time that I’ve lost my income, or I get to hope that I don’t get sick.
Exactly two groups of people get this “free ride.” Spouses and children. As the children are minors, I can understand why they get a free ride. But anyone else — my brother, my sister, my father, my mother, my uncle, my aunt, my best friend, my roommate, etc. — is left to pound sand if they get sick and are unemployed.
Also, your point about the child support clients you have who were never married? Would these people NOT owe child support if they HAD been married? Of course not. Married or not, when the relationship ends, the men (almost always it’s the man who is trying to head off into the sunset) are met with a lawyer and a wage-garnishment order. Neither marriage or non-marriage is the point.
And lastly, “Marriage is actually a set of rules and laws that defines what happens if a couple decides it’s over. It actually STREAMLINES the process of extrication, rather than complicating it.”
I dare you to tell that to someone engaged in a messy, protracted divorce. I hope you can take a punch.
On another note:
Cannibal Cop has been found guilty. As he should have been.
“Prosecutors countered that an analysis of Valle’s computer found he was taking concrete steps to abduct his wife and at least five other women he knew. They said he looked up potential targets on a restricted law enforcement database, searched the Internet for how to knock someone out with chloroform, and showed up on the block of one woman after agreeing to kidnap her for $5,000 for a New Jersey man, now awaiting trial.”
All the apologists here — including Ted — should read that again. This was not fantasy. Cannibal Cop was taking concrete steps to carry out his heinous plan. The prosecutors proved it, the jury knew it, even his wife knew it, and now this maniac is off the streets for good. My hope is he gets life without parole.
The apologists here need to do some apologizing of their own. Their lack of logic, denial of the facts, and other biases led them to a faulty conclusion. Thankfully, they weren’t on the jury.
Divide and Conquer. That’s how they rule.
@Ex,
“Their lack of logic, denial of the facts, and other biases led them to a faulty conclusion.”
More hyperbole.
@Ex: Do you really think law enforcement caught the ONE gynophagist in the history of the US who was actually going to kill and eat someone? the only other remotely comparable cannibal’s psychologist does not seem to think so. So I’m also curious what your source of certainty is.
Also, do we really care about something so rare and unlikely to happen to anyone that we are willing to allow prosecutors to set privacy-killing precedents like this? What an unceremonious way to unmask yourself as the exact opposite of the ridiculous revolutionary caricature you had been creating.
If the obvious answer to my first question has any basis in reality, we would expect to see holes in the prosecution’s case, and we would need a rationale for the jury to convict a man against whom there is no proof. And, in fact, when we look at what few facts from the case we have, we see that, indeed, there’s no real evidence. The prosecution simply grossed out the jury, made extensive use of confirmation bias, and ignored apparent consensus from the psychological community. I repeat, the Psychologist who examined Dahmer testified on Valle’s behalf.
You will notice in news articles, always looking for a sensational way to spin these things, you will see phrases like “court records show” and “prosecutors said”. The latter is used when there is no evidence (eg. the snippet you cut-n-pasted.) It appears they were going off of bragging he did, when in reality, records show he was often in the wrong state when making these claims on the fantasy boards he visited.
have a read of this. Not the DSM, but probably better than LA Times on this:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/shadow-boxing/201303/cannibal
ok, now feel free to run along and act like you did not just read any of that.
@Susan: Hyperbole is a four syllable word. You should really stick to words with two syllables or less. Including random grunts.
@olegna78: You incredible jackass. I’m not sure where you got the idea I’m a, what did you call me …. oh yeah: “The ridiculous revolutionary caricature you had been creating”. I’m not sure who you’re confusing me with, maybe Ted, but …. whatever you need to get through your day.
As to Cannibal Cop, your elitist attitude about the jury only convicting because the prosecutors grossed them out says it all. Thankfully we have juries that can listen to the evidence and come to a reasonable verdict. You are exactly what the founders were deliberately attempting to circumvent when they said the accused has the right to a trial judged by their peers. In your world, only people who’ve committed murder can actually be guilty of conspiracy to commit murder. I would imagine you’re a creationist too, since we can’t actually see the evidence of evolution happening in real time.
I haven’t followed the Cannibal Cop case. A question or two, though:
The timeline for this thing was that the wife put keytracking software on the computer (what a sweetheart she must be), discovered her husband was talking about all this craziness, and notified the police.
Why didn’t the police wait until the planning (which they were following at that point) had advanced to the “Okay, on Thursday, we grab them” stage, and then set up surveillance? Isn’t that how it’s done?
Also, taking a page out of the Standard Play book, we’ve now got a precedent established. A long while back, there was a book called “The Pushcart War.” The plot was that a bunch of pushcart owners went around with peashooters puncturing truck tires as a way to resist being forced out of business. If I buy that book, and then go online to price peashooters, am I liable to the same prosecutor zeal as Cannibal Cop? What if I’m a member of OWS and I buy a copy of The Anarchist’s Cookbook? What if I type that I’d like to see all the Wall Street bankers that wiped out the economy hanged and am then found at a Home Improvement in the aisle with the rope?
Clearly, the big lesson from all of this was the one most of us saw already: Your Internet life is subject, at any time, to being paraded in front of the public. Let’s say you’re a member of OWS. They — you know, nudge, nudge, THEY — want to get you out of the picture. Easy-peasy. Take you to trial, parade your Internet browser history through the public forum, and that’s that.
I almost hope they put this guy away for the rest of his life because he’s never going to be able to survive in the real world now. And changing his name won’t help. Once the facial recognition search engine comes along, what’s left of privacy will be gone forever.
Oh Alex. So much straw, so little time.
Perhaps you should look at the facts of the case, like the jury did, and then rephrase your questions to be more in line with reality. In short, the thought police are not coming after you.
@ex: You have retreated to “the jury said so”, OJ is innocent realm.
Gone is the strident “Their lack of logic, denial of the facts, and other biases led them to a faulty conclusion.”
Ex,
Previously, I asked you to put up or shut up. You did not put up.
So shut up.
All best,
Alex